- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Shashi Kant Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) BY means of this application the applicant has prayed for quashing of an order dated 28. 4. 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut in S. T. No. 673 of 2005. In the said order the learned Judge has observed that merely because two cross cases are pending, one in which the applicant was the complainant was pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, under sections 147/148/149/323/379ipc and the other case against the applicant under sections 147/148/149/304/323/504 IPC, which was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut, it is not necessary that the proceedings in the Session's case should be stayed and there is no provisions for stay of the same on this ground and the Magistrate has all powers under section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit the case to the Court of Sessions in case he is of the opinion that the same should be tried by the Court of Sessions. However, learned Counsel tried to contend that he has obtained two orders from this Court on 7. 3. 2007 in criminal miscellaneous application No. 4492 of 2007 and on 3. 4. 2007 in criminal miscellaneous application No. 7315 of 2007 that as it was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that cross cases are pending and both the cases should be disposed of by the same Court, hence an application should be moved in this regard before the Trial Court and time was fixed for disposal of the said application, but it appears that the earlier application was rejected on 22. 3. 2007 and now the second application was also rejected by the impugned order dated 28. 4. 2007. I may make it clear that even in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant Sudhir and others v. State of M. P. , 2001 (42) ACC 479 wherein reliance has been placed on certain other decisions of the Apex Court including the case of Nathi Lal and others v. State of U. P. and another, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145 that it is usually desirable that cross cases relating to one subject matter, should be decided by the same Judge, who should record the evidence in both the cases separately and pronounce his judgment thereafter" one after the other considering the separate evidence recorded in the two cases. However, neither of the said judgment nor any provision of the Code mandate that invariably this procedure has to be followed and that in every instance of cross cases, even if one case was a case triable by a Magistrate (under section 379 etc. as in the present case) and the other case was a case triable by Sessions Court (under section 304 IPC etc.) the two cases must necessarily be heard and disposed of by the same Sessions Judge.
(3.) IT is note worthy that in the present case although the applicant has subsequently been summoned, but the police after investigation had submitted final report on the FIR of the applicant, which commenced on the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. and which was lodged belatedly, whereas the charge-sheet under section 304 IPC was submitted on an FIR, which was promptly lodged against the applicant. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The application is rejected. Application Rejected. .;